[2026:RJ-JP:3718] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15278/2019 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Alwar, Tehsil And District Alwar, Rajasthan, Through Secretary ----Petitioner Versus Smt. Asharfi Wife Of Shri Rushtam, R/o Village Chirkhana, Tehsil And District Alwar, Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Manju Joshi with Ms. Deepa Singh For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 28/01/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 09.07.2019 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Alwar, Rajasthan, in Case No.306/2018 titled as Smt. Asharfi Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Alwar, vide which the respondent – applicant has been found entitled for receiving compensation under the Rajiv Gandhi Krishak Sathi Sahayata Yojana, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the Scheme of 2009”) and accordingly, the application filed by the respondent – applicant has been allowed and the petitioner – non-applicant – Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Alwar has been directed to make the payment of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent – applicant within 60 days from the date of passing of the order alongwith interest @9% per annum from 04.06.2018 till the date of payment and Rs.3,000/- towards legal expenses. [2026:RJ-JP:3718] (2 of 5) [CW-15278/2019] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Manju Joshi alongwith Ms. Deepa Singh, Advocate, vehemently submits that the impugned award has been passed ignoring the facts available on record, more particularly the clause 8 of the Scheme of 2009, which provides that any claim towards accident of a farmer would be admissible only if he meets with an accident in terms of the criteria mentioned in clause 8, which reads as under:- " अपने अथवा ककराये के साधन, कजसमे काशकार सयं हो, मणी मे कृ ष उपज लाते समय रासे मे हई दुररटना मे मृतु या अंग भग होने पर अथवा कृ कष उपज बेचकर अपने या ककराये के साधन से गांव लौटते समय (अगले कदन तक) मे हई दुररटना मे मृतु या अंग भंग होने पर" 3. Learned counsel submits that as the husband of the respondent – applicant was driving his own motorcycle and was not travelling on the tractor on which the goods were brought by the farmer to the Krishi Upaj Mandi, he is not entitled for the compensation under the said Scheme of 2009. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the Permanent Lok Adalat has failed to consider that the present scheme, though is a benevolent scheme, however, cannot be extended beyond the terms prescribed therein. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the application filed by the respondent – applicant be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 6. A bare perusal of the finding recorded in the order dated 09.07.2019 reveals that the respondent – applicant has been able to establish that the deceased was a farmer and he went to Krishi [2026:RJ-JP:3718] (3 of 5) [CW-15278/2019] Upaj Mandi for selling onions on his tractor and was returning back in the evening. The impugned order further records that the evidence with respect to entry book at serial No.707 on 24.10.2015 was also placed on record, which mentions that the deceased came in the Krishi Upaj Mandi alongwith onions and thus, the conditions as required by the clause 8 of the Scheme of 2009 stands duly fulfilled. 7. The mere excuse taken by the petitioner for denying the claim that the deceased was travelling on his own motorcycle and not on tractor by which the goods were brought for sale in Krishi Upaj Mandi is absolutely misconceived and fallacious, so as to deny a claim under the Scheme of 2009. 8. No error of fact or law much less a manifest or apparent error on the face of the proceedings has been committed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in allowing the said application and thus, there is no reason for any interference in the award dated 09.07.2019. It is a settled law that while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the scope of judicial review is limited and can be exercised only when the Subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available, is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel reported in (2022) 4 SCC 181, relevant extract of which reads as under:- “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order [Prakash [2026:RJ-JP:3718] (4 of 5) [CW-15278/2019] Chand Goel v. Garment Craft, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11943] is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. [Celina Coelho Pereira v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar, (2010) 1 SCC 217 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 69] The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. 16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. [Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97] has observed : (SCC pp. 101-102, para 6) “6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required [2026:RJ-JP:3718] (5 of 5) [CW-15278/2019] of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.”” 9. Consequently, the award dated 09.07.2019 deserves no interference and thus, the writ petition is dismissed. 10. As the unfortunate incident pertains to the year 2015, the petitioner is directed to ensure payment of the due amount as directed in the award dated 09.07.2019 within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. 11. All pending applications stand disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J JAYANT KUMAR /111